Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto was defiant in that news conference at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building this morning, defending her prosecution of Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki on misappropriation-of-funds charges and criticizing District Court Judge Valerie Adair’s Monday ruling that the state had done a poor job in court papers of describing the case. She stressed that Adair had not ruled on the substance of the charges, but only the process, and that Krolicki was most definitely not exonerated of misusing $6 million in state funds, a portion of which went to buy ads for a college savings program that featured Krolicki himself.

“The case was not dismissed based on a lack of merit,” she told reporters. “It was not dismissed based on any finding the state lacked sufficient evidence to prove its case at trial. The judge merely found the charging document, the indictment, was deficient on its face.”

But Adair refused a state motion to amend the indictment, which left Cortez Masto with only one option: Appeal. (She couldn’t try to get a second indictment, since the statute of limitations on the crime had already run.) And while Cortez Masto said she firmly believed Adair abused her discretion by denying the state a chance to fix problems in the first indictment, she said proving the same to the Nevada Supreme Court would have been difficult. Thus, she said, she’s dropping the case.

“I do not believe it is in the best interests of the state to proceed further with this case,” she said. “My office has reached the goal we set for them; shining a light on an elected official who misused the powers of his office.” And again: “Based on our actions, I believe other state officials will think twice about carrying out similar conduct in the future and will remain true to the state budget process established on behalf of our citizens.”

Although she’s right on both counts, we respectfully disagreed with the attorney general on the substance here. It’s the job of us in the media to shine a light on unethical, corrupt or lawbreaking politicians, and to get them to think twice before engaging in wrongdoing. Only the attorney general (or a county district attorney, or a U.S. attorney) has the power to bring a criminal indictment. And the goal of a criminal indictment is not to expose wrongdoing, but to move a criminal case to trial before a jury of the defendant’s peers.

Moreover, Democrat Cortez Masto said if she did appeal — the outcome of which is far from certain, by the way — she could be accused of abusing her office and persecuting Republican Krolicki for political reasons. He could claim, assuming the appeal went his way, that he was victimized and martyred. “That’s not what my office was about,” she said, following the news conference.

Again, we respectfully disagree: Cortez Masto is already being accused of a political persecution, with mostly circumstantial evidence. (The indictment came after Krolicki indicated a desire to challenge U.S. Sen. Harry Reid in 2010, and Cortez Masto’s husband, Paul, has been helping a would-be Democratic lieutenant governor mount a challenge to Krolicki.) If Cortez Masto’s going to suffer the indignities of those accusations — and she honestly believes her indictment is sound and the judge in error — why not forge on? In for a penny, in for a pound?

Having said that, however, we do understand Cortez Masto’s position: An appeal is always a risky gamble, even in a case that seems solid and reasonable (as this one surely does). Even though Cortez Masto says she believes she had a good chance of success on the merits, persuading a majority of the state Supreme Court to agree is a wholly different matter. Moreover, an appeal would have dragged on for months, as well as cost time and resources in the AG’s office. “You never know what’s going to happen,” she said. “We’ve done everything we possibly could with this case.”

Well, almost everything.

Still, Cortez Masto bristled at pronouncements from Krolicki, his campaign consultants, Republican party figures, the Review-Journal editorial page and others that Krolicki has been found innocent because of the dismissal. Far from it, she said: The 2007 state audit that uncovered the alleged wrongdoing, as well as papers filed in the case, all point to Krolicki’s guilt, she said. “This does not exonerate him,” she said. “I don’t take this lightly. This wasn’t an easy decision for us to make.”

And it’s clear why not: According to Cortez Masto, the funds Krolicki used for marketing the college savings program/himself could have been used for other expenses, had they not been concealed from the Legislature. “Money paid out side the state system represents an opportunity lost to the state. This taxpayer money could have been use dto support many other more worthwhile programs in need.” she said. (Krolicki attorney Richard Wright was out of his office today and Friday and couldn’t be reached for his view of Cortez Masto’s remarks.)

It was clearly a tough call for the AG, and one that she didn’t seem at all happy to have made. But she made it.

A final word about Krolicki: While we believe sincerely and strongly in his guilt, and while we think a criminal jury would have voted to convict him had it been given the chance, we’ve always followed a simple, constitutional principle: If a prosecutor cannot meet his or her burden of proof — whether because of insufficient evidence, or, as in this case, because of an insurmountable procedural hurdle, then the defendant must walk free. Cortez Masto has declared the procedural hurdle insurmountable. As such, the case against Brian Krolicki is over.

STAY IN THE LOOP! This story was first broadcast on Twitter. To follow us on Twitter, click here.