I'm not closely following the Libby trial because it's too easy to spend a great deal of time reading about all the many details of the process. Basically, I'm in the "call me when there is a verdict" group. That said, I'm very glad some people are paying close attention, because in this age of Kremlinology, one never knows what may come out in the various testimonies and senior moments and whatnot. So like Ms. Rozen, I wonder about this moment that 'floored' Swopa, who happens to be in the courtroom.

It happened when special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was arguing to submit as evidence an October 12, 2003 Washington Post article that Libby had saved in his files -- and even underlined passages alluding to the alleged 1x2x6 leaks. Scooter's lawyer stepped up to the podium and said, but we think those claims are entirely false, so why should Libby be accused of being worried about them? Fitz replied, no, we think there's some basis to believe the claims might be true. "Tell us what," said Team Libby, and I think the judge concurred.

At this, the unflappable, eternally prepared, ever-articulate Fitz basically lost all bladder and bowel control. He stood there, silent, for what seemed like ten seconds or more. Then he stumbled through a rambling recitation that jumbled together every known leak of Plame's identity, as if this is what the Post was talking about in the fall of 2003 -- even though some of the leaks were unknown to Fitzgerald until well into 2004 and even 2005. My jaw, which had crashed to the floor as Fitz's sudden freeze-up, stayed there during this stunning bit of barely coherent improvisation.

As I suggested last week, it seems like Fitzgerald is consciously avoiding any confirmation of the 1x2x6 story, even as the defense taunts him by saying, well, then why can't we assume it's false?

Indeed, why not? If the story is actually bogus, how would it hurt Fitzgerald's case to simply concede that it was off base? And if it's true, why is Fitz hiding it? The combination of dissonance and suspense is making my head explode. And my confusion kept me from being able to come up with any more parody material.

I have no idea what this means. But like the war, there are times when I get fed up with all the 'forest for the trees' moments. Libby, and Cheney, and probably others, broke the law. By some interpretations, including mine, they committed treason. For all the excitement the Libby trial may cause for some, I'm am much more sanguine about what it all means. I suppose it's too much to ask the Wise Men of Washington to police their own on matters of looting, lying, and general cronyism. But I believe they should make an exception for treason. Especially treason for domestic political gain. Particularly during a "time of war," when the agent in question was working on the very issue that was at the heart of the motivation for that war.

We've fallen very far when these simple facts are not central to the process of "justice." Without the prosecution of those responsible, I'm not confident we'll ever recover as a nation of laws. The impact on our "democracy" is distressingly great, and I hope that the folks most entertained by the details of this trial don't ever lose sight of that. (And I'm not accusing any of them of doing so, I'm just trying to add perspective to the discussion)