When it emerged this week that the trial of "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying to prosecutors about his role in leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame would not occur until January 2007 -- after the 2006 midterm elections -- there was significant concern among Democrats that this would push the issue out of the minds of the American people, and thus hamper the party's chances to retake one or both Houses of Congress on election day.

While these concerns are certainly well-intentioned, they are not necessarily well-founded. Notice that the occasional drip of news stories related to the case are neither making Libby look particularly good nor improving the administration or the GOP in the eyes of voters. Just look at the latest article on Libby penned by Mike Isikoff for the February 13 issue of Newsweek.

Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

If the facts from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into Libby's activities continue to end up in the media -- each time reminding voters of the unethical, and possibly illegal, activities by high-ranking Bush administration officials -- it is quite possible that the cumulative effect over several months is actually more damaging to the Republicans than a pre-election trial.

What's more, though Fitzgerald appears to have a strong case against Libby, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that Libby will be convicted at trial. Were the trial to take place before the election and Libby was in any way exhonerated -- or even if he were given the opportunity to present a robust defense of his activities before November -- Republicans might have received a small, yet noticeable boost heading into election day. Recall, for instance, that Republicans were fairly successful in spinning the Iran-Contra hearings and in fact won the first national election following the scandal.

So would it be preferable for "Scooter" Libby to promptly go to trial? Perhaps. But should the Democrats worry that a delay in the trial will save Republicans and the Bush administration from the embarassment of an indicted White House official? Or will the post-election trial limit the Democrats' chances on November 7? No and no.