So, what does it say that Hillary Clinton chose Mr. Berger as one of her advisers, and that she will rely on the advice of a convicted criminal who is barred from access to the sort of national security information a party’s candidate for President is routinely briefed on during a campaign?
She selected a key adviser she knows has scandalously flouted the law, lied to deflect blame onto others, and subverted the democratic processes that provide accountability for officials’ conduct. She selected someone who has destroyed documents that could be crucial to America’s security to be a trusted councilor on national security matters – documents that could have contained hand-written notes by her husband or information that would have called his judgment into question.
Hillary has had to renounce associates before. She’s had numerous fund-raising scandals involving criminal wrong-doing by people she should have known to be criminals, Norman Hsu being the most recent and notorious. But in all of those instances, she has had the plausible excuse that she didn’t know what they had done wrong.
In Sandy Berger’s case, there is no excuse. Hillary’s inclusion of Sandy Berger in her circle of advisers demonstrates that, notwithstanding her law license, she really doesn’t care about the law. She doesn’t care whether someone violates the law if they’re on her team, if the violation in some way helps the Clintons. Hillary’s indifference to criminal wrong-doing suggests that she sees herself as above the law, breezily ignoring law when it’s an impediment to something she wants.
Sandy Berger didn’t lie about sex or do something ordinary that isn’t strictly in keeping with law – like speeding on a road where citizens regard the posted limits as advisory rather than mandatory. Sandy Berger committed a serious crime, intentionally, and lied about it, intentionally, and put his nation at risk. Hillary isn’t bothered by any of that. Whatever she says about the rule of law – which limits official power to safeguard all of us – she evidently doesn’t believe it was intended to place limits on her.
I was thoroughly surprised that Hillary picked Sandy Berger as an adviser. I’m also a little surprised of such little media attention so far. I wonder if Mr. Berger garners enough attention, will she drop him? Are the republicans not brining attention to Mr. Berger in the hopes that she will keep him long enough to cause her damage closer to the election when they finally make an issue out of him?