An editorial in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal doesn’t come out and say as much, but makes a strong case that such might be the case. Read the piece, and judge for yourself. For what it’s worth, it has always struck me as odd that Patrick Fitzgerald would spend time and money to prosecute a perjury case where the guy indicted was supposedly lying about something he didn’t do in the first place, that the prosecutor knew someone else had actually done, and that wasn’t a crime anyway (and that the prosecutor knew wasn’t a crime). I would suggest that Jonathan Turley, who described the Libby case as a “modest case against a hapless guy” was perhaps being generous to the prosecutor. Very odd indeed.