Whoa... Judge in Scooter Libby, Sibel Edmonds Cases Is Redacted In Action

[WillyT]

Reposted Here From GD, By Request - WillyT

I don't know where to start here, and I'm probably not makin a lot of sense with this original post, but... just read this thing please.

This Judge is another Bush Crony, an Administration Insider... unfucking believable!!!

Anybody know the cred of NarcoNews? :shrug:

<snip>

What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?

They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own. All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial disclosure reports.”

The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times.

And...

Still, Edmonds points out that the way Walton landed on her original whistleblower-related case (the one the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear), as well her currently pending case, does seem a bit more than a cosmic coincidence.

“Walton was the original judge on my case (the Supreme Court case), when we filed our case (in District Court in Washington, D.C.) in July 2002,” Edmonds says. “Another judge was assigned to it, then, mysteriously and with no reason, it was transferred to another judge, and then again, a few weeks later, it was transferred to Walton.

“Walton is now assigned to my (new) case, … another random one.”

<snip>

Link: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/12/17/181422/49

Redacted financial disclosure pdf: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/70/rwalton.pdf

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[cascadiance]

1. I think another note that this article points out...

Is that she still has one pending case at the district court level, aside from the one that was earlier dismissed by Walton (and later the appeal refused by the Supreme Court). And that this case in addition to the original case is also being handed to Walton. Does anyone know if this was a separate "random" selection? Or did they pick Walton to judge both of her cases at the same time? If both case selections were supposed to be random, AND Libby's case was random, then I would question the methodology of the "randomness" of these selections, as they don't appear to be mathematically consistent with randomness.

BTW, thanks to posting to this forum. Now that Sibel's case was refused by the Supreme Court, we should probably fill up this forum with good historical information for newbies looking for background info. I'll try to get some of that organized more after the holiday season.