notlistening.jpg

Looks like Judge Walton can read the plain letter of the law, too. 

In a 31-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton turned down a motion by lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s onetime top assistant, who challenged the authority of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to handle the case.

Libby’s lawyers had argued that Fitzgerald was given too much power — more than the attorney general — and that the appointment should have been made by the president with the Senate’s approval.

Walton said Thursday he did not need to "look far" in the law to reject the claim by Libby’s defense team. The judge said there is no question the attorney general can delegate any of his functions.

In judge speak, the "did not need to ‘look far’" bit means that he’s telling Team Libby to stop wasting his time with close to frivolous bullshit motions.  In other words, "thwap upside the head for wasting my valuable judge time and don’t do it again."

And to all those folks who told me I was relying too heavily on the written law in my analysis of the dismissal motion, I say…well, I’m too much of a lady to say it.  But it looks like Walton agreed that it was fairly clear cut.  Big thanks to Attaturk and Anon for the heads up on this.

Haven’t yet gotten my hands on the Judge’s order (it’s been one of those cranky 3-year-old days here this morning, and I’m lucky to have had time to post at all the way my day has been going), but when I do get a chance to pull it off Pacer, or if someone else has a link if its already been posted online or would be kind enough to send me a copy of their already downloaded order, I’ll do the play-by-play on Walton’s legal analysis.

Poor Byron York and all the other wingnut acolytes will just have to do that dance around and la-la-la-la-la thing with their fingers in their ears just a little longer after fronting the Babs Comstock idiocy that they’d get a technicality dismissal when the law was so clearly not on their side.