Why Isn't Sandy Berger Going to Prison?

Instapundit has a good roundup of the news relating to Sandy Berger copping to a single count of misconduct due to his theft and destruction of classified documents. Consider the following:

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil. . . .

Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.

Berger admits to purposefully destroying classified documents, which is a federal crime. It should be punishable by prison time. Yet, Berger gets off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Martha Stewart got a harsher sentence for doing far less. What kind of message is being sent here by federal prosecutors? Why is Berger being given such a lenient sentence? It really makes no sense considering that this is a cut and dried case of illegal activity, plus a coverup of those activities.

And yes, the question remains just what was Berger trying so desperately to destroy and hide from investigators? Was the Clinton Administration handling of counter terrorism so awful (and more damning than we already know) that Berger felt the need to break the law to hide this fact from the public?

Sadly, this chapter is not over.

UPDATE 9:41AM EST:
I believe that Berger should have faced prison time over his actions, which include the destruction of original documents relating to the 9/11 investigation. These were draft copies that included original notes in the margins, some of which could have shed light on how the Clinton Administration dealt with counter terror efforts.

The crimes Berger likely committed include Obstruction of justice (18 USC 1505), Destruction of records (18 USC 1519), Obstruction of criminal investigation (18 USC 1510), etc. You get the idea.

A slap on the wrist was wholly inappropriate. Will Berger's security clearance be revoked so that he can no longer have any access to classified documents? He's completely untrustworthy at this point to be entitled to such access.

UPDATE II 10:07 AM EST:

The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

Instead, he got a $10,000 fine and no prison time. Something fishy? You bet.