Krolicki case ends with the attorney general on the defensive

Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki believes he's been vindicated.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto believes he got off on a technicality.

There's truth in what both say. When an indictment is tossed, no matter what the reason, the defendant is innocent in America. So yes, Krolicki is vindicated. And it was on a technicality.

Masto could have explained her reasons for abandoning the case without insisting he was guilty. But she didn't. She piled it on Thursday saying, "My office has reached the goal I set for them; shining a light on an elected official who misused the powers of his office."

Masto did what I expected by abandoning the case. What I didn't expect was her unyielding insistence that Krolicki and his chief of staff, Kathryn Besser, both broke the law, even though the charges were dismissed Monday.

The judge who dismissed the case saying the indictment was deficient "did not rule on the merits of the case," Masto said.

Without specifying which of Krolicki's five legal arguments were "without merit" and which weren't before the court at the right time, District Judge Valerie Adair dismissed the case on one -- the indictment was insufficient and lacked detail.

Masto isn't going to appeal Adair's ruling, calling it a question of cost and best use of resources, not because she believes the judge was correct. But she also conceded, "There was no guarantee I was going to win on appeal." The statute of limitations limits her from presenting it to another grand jury.

"Politics didn't play into it," the Democrat said, adding if she wanted to play politics, she would have indicted Krolicki when he was Nevada campaign chairman for John McCain. Instead, she waited until after the presidential election.

The prosecution alleged that between 2001 and 2006, Krolicki spent $6 million of the state's money without the Legislature's approval, in violation of the State Budget Act. Krolicki spent $1.5 million marketing the Nevada College Savings Program, a new investment program for Nevadans to save for their children's college education.

The crime Masto alleged he committed was not turning the money over to the general fund. His defense team argued that he wasn't required to legally. A jury would have had to decide that issue.

The prosecution and defense disagree whether Krolicki had been advised by the attorney general's office whether he could use the money for marketing. Masto said that's not true; the defense team said it is. Another issue for jurors -- who will never get to decide.

Attorneys I respect say the attorney general never should have brought this case because there was no evidence Krolicki benefited financially. Nevadans are used to politicians grabbing cash in exchange for votes, and having it on tape where their venal side shines. "There's no smoking gun that he personally pocketed the money," she said.

Masto rejected the idea she should not have filed the case, insisting it was her duty to file it.

Did Masto learn anything from this?

"The only thing I do recognize is that it's not sexy enough for the public," she said.

Her only concession: While insisting the indictment wasn't deficient, it should have been specific because the case was not clear to the public or the media. "If I had to do it over again, that's probably one area where we would have had more specifics." Other than that, she wouldn't do anything differently.

"There's no way I can win on this case in the public's eye," she conceded.

But just as I said Krolicki should lay off the "partisan politics" whine, she should lay off the "he's guilty anyway" tactic.

Meanwhile, Krolicki's political star is shining bright while Masto's has dimmed dramatically.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.