What I enjoy about investigations into government wrongdoing

The committee says, in essence -- most recently in the question of whether or not the memos of John Yoo and Jay Bybee justifying the use of torture amounted to war crimes in and of themselves --  "These two guys are conscienceless bastards, vicious lowlife sociopaths, and it was a close call, BUT we couldn't get enough hard evidence to prosecute."

Then the party faithful (politicspeak for asslickers) will put it this way: they were COMPLETELY EXONERATED of any wrongdoing because it was just a partisan witch hunt and "this shouldn't have been close -- and it wasn't, on the merits."

For John Yoo, prosecution was declined because "Yoo was an ideologue who entered government service with a warped vision of the world in which he sincerely believed."

In other words, he wasn't following vicious deranged orders -- he was already vicious and deranged before he ever went into government service. That wasn't not the justification for declining to prosecute -- the dismissal was solely because of lack of admissible evidence --  inadmissible because, as Yale Law Professor  Jack Balkin explained:

"...the only thing that saved Yoo in (Chief Prosector David) Margolis' eyes was that attorney ethical rules have been written by lawyers to protect themselves, and the bar is therefore so low that it basically includes only "sociopaths and people driven to theft and egregious incompetence by serious drug and alcohol abuse problems."

But they were "completely exonerated."

And when was the last time I heard that joke?

It was when the people investigating wrongdoing by the person Ed Schultz refers to a "Caribou Barbie"  came to the same "too close to call" conclusion. And Gov Palin loudly declared that she had been "completely exonerated," that it was "all political."

Maybe we could get something like Instant Replay on those "coin toss" decisions?

Nahh. As the professor said, the ones who need jail time are the same ones who wrote the laws.