The probe began in fall 2003. Fitzgerald was appointed at the end of December, which means he has been on the job for two and a half years. So far, he has indicted one person — former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, who has been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. But no one has been accused of any underlying crime in the case, that is, with violating either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act. Those are serious laws covering serious crimes. If someone in the Bush administration knowingly and intentionally unmasked a covert CIA agent, that would be a serious matter indeed. But Fitzgerald has made no such accusation. When he announced the indictment of Libby last October, he took pains to point out that “we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.” In addition, after suggesting that the leak “really, really hurt” Valerie Plame Wilson and that “the damage wasn’t to one person . . . it was done to all of us,” Fitzgerald, in court just a few months ago, told Judge Reggie Walton that “we don’t intend to offer any proof of actual damage” caused by the disclosure of Wilson’s identity. So the case seems to have moved far away from the original uproar that resulted in Fitzgerald’s appointment. But what now? Well, there is some unfinished business to attend to. For example, as far as we know, the question of who leaked Wilson’s identity to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward is still open. Perhaps the answer will be relevant to the case. And maybe there is some completely unknown — at least to us — set of circumstances that warrant further investigation. But if the CIA-leak case results in no more charges in the foreseeable future, it will be time for Fitzgerald to close up shop (beyond prosecuting Libby). Doing so will undoubtedly set off howls of protest from Democrats and what might be called the frog-marching community. Last December, they wanted to see a “Fitzmas” in which a whole slew of administration officials faced indictment. Now, if that’s not going to happen, they will have to reconcile themselves with reality. But, at least for now, there’s no sign they are willing to admit what’s going on in front of their faces. Indeed, after news of Rove’s non-indictment became public, Democratic senator Charles Schumer called on Fitzgerald to issue a full report so that anyone involved who wasn’t charged might still be, in Schumer’s words, “given the appropriate punishment.” Sorry, Senator Schumer, but that’s not the way these things work. Such reports were mandated under the old independent-counsel law, but Fitzgerald has no such obligation. If this investigation ends without any more charges, rather than seek to prolong it more, it will be time for the Democrats and their allies to give up and move on. That’s what they used to say, isn’t it? Move on?