Complex cases usually take years to proceed through the courts. In addition, the indictment released today describes a chronology of close to two years and a complicated set of facts. Obviously, Fitzgerald is taking a "big picture" approach to this case. This mirrors his approach to previous cases. In December 2003, for example, Fitzgerald announced the indictment of former Illinois Governor George Ryan on corruption charges in Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998. In that year, the investigation of a fatal accident revealed that truckers were purchasing commercial licenses from state officials. Indictments were announced in stages, culminating in the indictment of Ryan, who was the 66th defendant in the case. In the Libby case, the allegations suggest he was merely one of many officials -- including an unnamed Under Secretary of State and "Official A," a Senior White House Official -- who were involved in revealing classified information about Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame. No other individuals are named as defendants, and they should not be considered so at this point, but the complexity of the indictment suggests that the investigation may follow a pattern similar to that used by Fitzgerald in the Illinois corruption case.

Not surprisingly, I don't find this a terribly convincing argument. It's entirely based on drawing an analogy between two cases which are not comparable because Fitzgerald's authority in each of them is distinctly different. In the Ryan case, Fitzgerald was acting as U.S. Attorney, with general responsibility to investigate and follow the facts where they lead, and charge and prosecute for whatever crimes he came across, just as is normally the case. Fitzgerald's responsibility in the Plamegate case is much more restricted and specific: his brief is to act as the surrogate for the Attorney General in the

investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity

including

authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses...

And that's it.

To reiterate, his job is to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame, and prosecute any crimes that may have been involved, and, in addition, he can prosecute any crimes which obstructed his investigated. With such a tight and specific charge, there's really no chance at all that Fitzgerald is going to range far afield in the way that de la Vega predicts.

I think this is something crucial that's been almost entirely lost in the brouhaha over "Fitzmas", that Fitzgerald was *never* going to go after all the things people were speculating he would, because it's not the job he was given to do -- and he takes that limitation seriously.

Update: This piece by Marty Aussenberg argues that the purpose of Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby was to squeeze him in order to flip him on Cheney. That would go along with my estimation that Fitzgerald's focus is very tightly on crimes connected with the outing of Plame, but against my earlier argument that Rove would be the upper limit in issuing indictments.