IT'S A TRIAL ABOUT . . . NOTHING

    Most news reports this week have highlighted the prosecution's successes. But the prosecutor must prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt" - and the Libby team has had evident success in casting all kinds of doubt on the testimony of Fitzgerald's witnesses. So things are far muddier in Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom than the reporters covering the trial are letting on.

    This is easily seen if you read the observations of the most obsessive followers of the Libby case. They come in two varieties - left-wingers who'd be happy to see Libby face a firing squad and righties who'd now be happy to see Fitzgerald face a firing squad.

    Web sites on both sides of the ideological divide provide moment-by-moment transcripts of the courtroom proceedings, and other sites give moment-by-moment analysis.

    Reading these sites every day has a vertigo-inducing effect that probably resembles the suffering of those who have bipolar disorder.

    it's become the habit of those consumed with this case's details to depersonalize their "enemies" - meaning not only Libby or Fitzgerald, but also their witnesses, fellow lawyers and the like.

    Maybe that's because the case against Scooter Libby is so astoundingly petty that arguing over it is like arguing over scraps.

    To secure his conviction, Fitzgerald only wants the jury to agree to the following - that Libby, who acknowledges having learned a fact on a Thursday, is lying when he claims he'd already forgotten it four days later.

    You'd think that would be a pretty easy case to make. But it turns out it's not - and that, even on Fitzgerald's own extremely narrow terms, he may not be able to establish these plain facts beyond a reasonable doubt.