Apologists for Berger argued that no harm was done, because other copies of the same reports were still in the possession of the commission. But that, of course, is preposterous. If Berger thought it necessary to destroy the reports, even though other copies of them were available to the commission, then what he wanted to destroy wasn't the reports themselves but things their recipients (very probably including Clinton) had written on those particular copies.
What sorts of things would have impelled Berger to take the very serious risk of stealing those documents from the National Archives and cutting them to bits? Needles to say, Berger has never uttered a word on the subject. Today, his lawyer says Berger considers the matter closed and is seeking to move on.
Naturally! But it is as plain as a pikestaff that Berger was concealing, and is still concealing, evidence of grave derelictions by Clinton or his aides in connection with terrorist activities in the United States prior to 9/11.