McCarthy on Libby

A reader writes:

I think Andy McCarthy's interpretation of the 'Where's Rove?' comment is a bit disingenuous. The defense opened up their arguments saying that Libby was sacrificed to protect Rove and Cheney, but they then proceeded to provide none of this evidence. Rove wasn't called to testify, Cheney was nowhere to be found, and Libby didn't take the stand for his own defense. That juror comment is more an indictment of a poor job from the defense than it was of unnecessary charges being filed.

Andy believes that the investigators "should have quickly realized that the facts here did not warrant a prosecution" under IIPA. No crime no foul, no Libby indictment. I believed that investigators saw smoke, and decided to dig and find the fire. Problem is that Libby lied and constructed a bogus story to cover his (and Cheney's) butt. This interference prevented the investigators in uncovering the facts that could have led to charges under the espionage and identity protection acts. Libby lied to hide the truth. If Libby did not lie, then Rove and Cheney may be on trial right now for the damage they have done. If that was what Libby intended to do, he seems to have succeeded.

But what if Libby now decides to tell the truth? I mean: about the real reason he lied and risked jail to protect his boss?