Rick Perry legal team tries to have case thrown out because special prosecutor "did not properly take his oath." Seriously, that's all they've got?

Courtesy of the Statesman: 

A state district judge refused to throw out the criminal charges against Gov. Rick Perry, ruling Tuesday that special prosecutor Michael McCrum had been properly appointed to the case. 

Perry’s legal team argued that the charges must be voided because special prosecutor Michael McCrum did not properly take his oath of office when he began working on the governor’s case, negating every act performed over the past 15 months — including the indictment accusing Perry of abusing the powers of his office. 

Senior District Judge Bert Richardson disagreed. 

“This court concludes that Mr. McCrum’s authority was not voided by the procedural irregularities in how and when the oath of office … was administered,” Richardson’s order said. 

What’s more, Richardson ruled, Perry’s lawyers waited too long to raise their objections to the way McCrum was sworn in more than a year ago.

There are those, on both sides of the aisle, who have suggested that this case against Perry is weak and  has no teeth. However if Perry's legal team is already scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to discredit the prosecutor bringing the case to trial, that seems to indicate a lack of confidence in their ability to beat this thing on the evidence.

And as Jeffrey Toobin pointed out earlier this year, the evidence is pretty damning:  

What Perry did was obvious. The Governor was using his leverage to jam a political adversary—not exactly novel behavior in Texas, or most other states. But Democrats succeeded in winning the appointment of a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to investigate Perry’s behavior, and on Friday McCrum brought the hammer down. The threat to veto the money for the D.A. amounted to, according to the prosecutor, two different kinds of felonies: a “misuse” of government property, and a corrupt attempt to influence a public official in “a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty” or “to violate the public servants known legal duty.” (In the charmingly archaic view of Texas statutes, every public official is a “him.”)

No if this case ends the way many think it might end, I don't think the sentencing pictures will be quite as flattering to "Governor Good Hair" as his mugshot was.