First, well, no. The investigation was of an entirely different suspected crime. Whether that one was committed has yet to be determined. The grand jury's time expired, that's all. There will be another. But if that crime turns out to have been committed rather than just alleged, that crime will have existed before the investigation began.

Besides, there still is no crime, investigation or not. What we have is an indictment. I find it interesting that people on both sides are behaving as if Libby will be convicted. He hasn't had his day in court yet, and so is still considered innocent. Granted, Fitzpatrick wouldn't indict unless he thought he had more than smoke, but just the same, in a criminal matter, the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes into play. Libby has indicated he will fight like hell. So would I.

Of course, he may, for all his brave talk today, plead guilty, which will mean no trial and no testimony. And if he does, I wonder how he might benefit from that.

Second, "The investigators made him do it" is a really lame way to excuse committing a crime. Investigators uncover crimes. Investigators don't cause crime; criminals cause crime.

"Officer, if the neighbors hadn't called the police to investigate the yelling in our house, I wouldn't have felt so threatened that I held my family hostage for two hours. They made me do it!"

Puleeze. Are these grown-ups or not? Do they know what the truth is? Is it that scary to obey the law? To tell the truth in front of a grand jury might be risky depending on what one has done, but it's not difficult. Lying is a choice.