The Invisible AG appears too late

Now we know why Catherine Cortez Masto wouldn't talk about her case against Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki for so long.

On Thursday, Nevada's attorney general finally answered questions about the confounding corruption charges she brought against Krolicki. It had been one year since her indictment against Krolicki was returned, and not once had she come forward to explain a case that smelled of partisanship, puzzled the press and was too procedural to resonate with the public.

The state's top law enforcement officer, an elected Democrat, was trying to obtain multiple felony convictions against Nevada's second-ranking Republican, and she was invisible.

Three days ago, at long last, Masto was in front of the cameras, looking polished, laying out her evidence, firmly explaining that Krolicki was corrupt and guilty as heck and that she was sending a message to all elected officials that they must act with integrity and be held accountable when they don't.

It would have been impressive ... if she hadn't already lost the case and announced that she was dropping the matter entirely.

On Monday, all charges against Krolicki and his chief of staff were dismissed. District Judge Valerie Adair, like everyone else, couldn't make heads or tails of it all. She ridiculed the indictment supporting the charges as totally lacking in evidence that any crimes were committed.

Masto's case against Krolicki could be boiled down to this: Krolicki, as state treasurer, put about $6 million in fees earned by the Nevada College Savings Trust Fund in the wrong accounts, and spent $1.5 million advertising the savings plan (with his image) when the Legislature had not specifically authorized him to do so.

Every dime was accounted for, no money went into Krolicki's pocket, the savings plan was performing well and meeting its obligations, and there was no evidence that Krolicki demonstrated criminal intent. Elected officials at all levels of government use taxpayer dollars to boost their name recognition. It's wrong, but Krolicki, who was planning to challenge Sen. Harry Reid before he was indicted, was guilty of nothing more than being a politician.

On a corruption scale of 1 to 10, where a 10 is former Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny taking huge bribes and being caught on a wiretap begging for cash, this case was a zero. It would put a jury to sleep.

You can't win a case if you can't explain it. Masto tried mightily on Thursday, both at a news conference and in a separate meeting with the Review-Journal's editorial board, but her answers were riddled with contradictions.

If after 45 minutes you can't make a convincing statement that your prosecution is righteous, the crimes serious and that the defendant deserves to lose his career, reputation and maybe even his freedom, you're probably wasting your time.

Masto had stayed quiet about the Krolicki case because she never had a handle on it. It was a loser from the start.

Thursday, she spoke as though she had no choice but to bring the charges against Krolicki, yet she made the choice to drop the case.

She said she treated the case like any other, then spoke about knowing the politics involved put her between a rock and a hard place.

Her indictment had been deemed unworthy of a second-year law student, but she thought her work and the work of her deputies was fine and the judge was wrong.

She refused to say whether her allegations against Krolicki were more or less serious than other cases, then she declared that mortgage fraud had become a higher priority than the Krolicki prosecution.

She spoke passionately about Krolicki wasting taxpayer money that could have been better used in education or social services, but she didn't know how much money the state had wasted pursuing this case for three years.

She said Krolicki, who served eight years as treasurer before becoming lieutenant governor, deserved to be charged with felonies despite his lack of criminal intent because he should have known the requirements of state law regarding fund use and transfers. Never mind that Masto, a member of the Nevada bar for 19 years and attorney general for three, apparently doesn't know how to write an indictment.

I want to believe Masto's assertion that politics played no role in this prosecution. But her justifications and excuses make me think otherwise. The fact that her husband, Paul, was planning to host a fundraiser for Robert Randazzo, Krolicki's Democratic challenger in next year's election, is too coincidental.

For another perspective on this case, just flip the party affiliations and imagine the reaction. If a Republican attorney general were prosecuting a Democratic lieutenant governor who had planned to run against Sen. John Ensign, then the GOP attorney general disappeared from radar while her husband raised money for the lieutenant governor's Republican challenger, the state's media and political establishments would be freaking out.

If Masto was so eager to sink her teeth into a corruption case, why didn't she tackle the land giveaways by McCarran International Airport and the city of Las Vegas? Taxpayers took a beating in those boondoggles, while favored parties got rich. The wrongdoing was obvious -- and easy to explain.

Only one thing was accomplished in this ordeal: Brian Krolicki is no longer planning to challenge Democratic patriarch Harry Reid.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.