Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I had nothing to do with this. No knowledge. No authorization. No planning, nothing to do with this before this decision was made to close these lanes by the Port Authority," Christie said during his monthly radio show on NJ 101.5 FM.
It might be true, but I feel he distances himself a bit too far from it. In all honesty, I feel his quote should've read as follows:
"I had nothing to do with this. No knowledge. No authorization. No planning, nothing to do with this before this decision was made to close these lanes by my appointees at the Port Authority, who were apparently following orders given, unbeknownst to me, by my staff in Trenton."
I, personally, would feel that the corrected statement MIGHT ring "True".
I haven't been posting around the main NJ board in a while, but I have received several messages asking me for my opinion on the whole Christie bridge-thing. There are a few threads, but this one seems most active. So, here it is...
Do I think Christie knew what was going on?
I'm not 100% convinced that Christie knew about the plan to close the lanes. If he is half as devious as most now say he is, he would have been smart enough to allow himself plausible deniability. He can "authorize" something without actually ever knowing about it and the associated details. Think Reagan in Iran-Contra. Many polticians operate this way when it comes to more fringe activities. Based on that I doubt he ever actually knew or authorized such a thing to happen and they will never produce conclusive proof that he knew. That's if he's smart.
However, IMO, he is responsible no matter what mainly because he created a culture in his office were such an action was considered "acceptable". I can't think of any staffer or appointee who would go so grossly rogue as to think this was OK, unless they were under the impression from the boss that such activity would be acceptable. Therefore, in my mind, Christie is guilty regardless even if his only role was putting "pitbulls" into those positions.
If they were able to produce proof that he knew, it would be an instantly impeachable offense and his career would be over.
What about Wildstein's claims?
I think Christie was right that "Wildstein will do anything to save Wildstein". The claims were all central to his move to have his legal fees covered by the PANYNJ and have himself legally indemnified. His entire crux is that he was "under orders" from the Christie Administration which would mean that he was acting in his capacity as an official of the PANYNJ. He has NEVER made the assertion that Christie "knew" about the closings or reason behind them before they happened. What he (his lawyer) said was that the "Christie Administration" ordered the closings and that the governor "knew about the closings as they were happening". The last part would mean that Christie may have publicly lied in his initial statements. However, the proof may be nothing more then routine communication between the PANYNJ and the Administration. If the PANYNJ sent a notice to the Administration about the closures then this would technically constitute "Christie knowing" even if no one told him. Basically, Wildstein is a sideshow and won't be the one to bring Christie down.
What about all of the other investigations?
I see most of this as nothing but opportunistic piling on. I'm not saying that there isn't merit in all of these investigations and that they won't find anything, but all of them hitting now is certainly purposeful to a degree. For instance, the whole Hoboken thing. Did that mayor not think that such an allegation would have been something to mention during the election if she had concrete proof of anything? With all of them hitting at once, it makes it very hard for the Administration to manage all of the variables and develop viable strategies for dealing with them. Consider this aspect the "throwing a bunch of ish against the wall hoping some of it sticks". In that sense, yes this has somewhat of an element of Dems beating up on Christie on purpose, but it's not like Christie didn't essentially bring this on himself. Individually most of these would be minor annoyances, but collectively under the shadow of a larger investigation they have more weight.
What does this mean for Christie's future?
If they find any direct evidence he is done, period. Impeached, tarred, feathered, etc. and rightly so.
Absent direct evidence this entire process will at the very least derail any major legislation or initiatives he had planned for the next year or two. This is bad and hurts everyone in the state. Like Christie or not, he was able to accomplish several pieces of landmark legislation in a bipartisan manner. All of that is done until the investigations are complete and this fades away. Whatever political capital he gained with his victory is now gone. We now won't be debating actual issues, but instead focusing on scandal.
In terms of his national political aspirations, who knows. The rest of the country is already tired of hearing about it and most of the late night guys just get groans and eye rolls when they mention it. If the investigations turn up wrong doing that is implicated on Christie himself, he is done nationally even if he is not done in NJ as governor. On the other hand if they don't turn up anything, then he will be seen as "exonerated" and can use the investigations to his advantage as examples of the level of scrutiny he has passed. All of it really is for nought though as Christie has virtually ZERO chance of winning the Republican primary. Christie is a raging liberal to most southern Republicans and they hate him about as much as NJ Democrats do. I think he had a very slim chance to win the nomination to begin with and the scandals at the very least call into question his number one claim and serve as evidence that he can't control his own house.
His whole use of the word prior knowledge in response to Wildstein's latest - apropos of nothing Wildstein claimed - tells me there could be evidence of him knowing what was going on the week of the closures. It's why he keeps bringing up the long de-bunked "traffic study." Like "i didn't plan this ahead of time and I was told by Baroni/Wildstein it was just a traffic study."
Anyway, CC needs a Lying For Dummies book. The manure's getting thick. Now he said he learned of this when Foye spilled the beans to the WSJ. I thought he said it was when he...haha...just got finished with a "workout" the day before The Record ran their article and he fired Bridge-t without ever even talking to her,
His whole use of the word prior knowledge in response to Wildstein's latest - apropos of nothing Wildstein claimed - tells me there could be evidence of him knowing what was going on the week of the closures. It's why he keeps bringing up the long de-bunked "traffic study." Like "i didn't plan this ahead of time and I was told by Baroni/Wildstein it was just a traffic study."
Anyway, CC needs a Lying For Dummies book. The manure's getting thick. Now he said he learned of this when Foye spilled the beans to the WSJ. I thought he said it was when he...haha...just got finished with a "workout" the day before The Record ran their article and he fired Bridge-t without ever even talking to her,
It's all a giant semantical cluster flop. Having knowledge of the fact lanes were closed is different from having knowledge as to why they were closed. I think CC's first comments were that he "didn't know why they were closed", Wildstein and now many in the press are hammering in on "whether or not he knew there was a closure". CC now needs to back pedal and use words like prior to differentiate his claimed stance that he didn't know that the closings were going to happen and hence no knowledge of the reasons behind them from whether or not he heard about lane closings during the fiasco.
I know you don't like CC and this is all very entertaining to you, but none of the semantical battles really matter. This is just an attempt to catch him in a "lie" even if it really isn't a lie. The media can work much like an attorney or interrogator slightly shiftin words and statements until they get to scream "A HA!!!".
I'm going to reserve my desire to run him out of office entirely until there is some sort of conclusive proof. Honestly, I doubt that any of these investigations are going to find anything that will permanently stick on CC. I'm just disgusted by the whole process which will waste about a year or two of anything actually getting done. I have also lost a great deal of respect for Christie because regardless of whether or not he knew, he still allowed a culture to exist among his staff and cronies so that they would think such an act was OK.
It's all a giant semantical cluster flop. Having knowledge of the fact lanes were closed is different from having knowledge as to why they were closed. I think CC's first comments were that he "didn't know why they were closed", Wildstein and now many in the press are hammering in on "whether or not he knew there was a closure". CC now needs to back pedal and use words like prior to differentiate his claimed stance that he didn't know that the closings were going to happen and hence no knowledge of the reasons behind them from whether or not he heard about lane closings during the fiasco.
I know you don't like CC and this is all very entertaining to you, but none of the semantical battles really matter. This is just an attempt to catch him in a "lie" even if it really isn't a lie. The media can work much like an attorney or interrogator slightly shiftin words and statements until they get to scream "A HA!!!".
I'm going to reserve my desire to run him out of office entirely until there is some sort of conclusive proof. Honestly, I doubt that any of these investigations are going to find anything that will permanently stick on CC. I'm just disgusted by the whole process which will waste about a year or two of anything actually getting done. I have also lost a great deal of respect for Christie because regardless of whether or not he knew, he still allowed a culture to exist among his staff and cronies so that they would think such an act was OK.
I dislike all bullying, lying sacks of sh#t. Christiebots thought he could walk on water because they WANTED a tough-talking hero to stand up to those mean little teachers making all that money. Bullies rooting for a bully.
It's really pretty simple to establish his lying credentials. Did he first hear about the hubub on the GWB when the WSJ article came out on Oct. 1st or was it the day before The Record expose came out? He's all over the place and frankly not believable knowing his micro-managing ways.
And he "knew nothing" about the traffic study but knew enough to joke around about "me being out there moving around the traffic cones." In fact that's precisely what the Port Authority flunky did that week when Wildstein called up & started Operation Bridge Disaster.
What goes around comes around for Christie. He distorted the facts on teachers pay, benefits and pensions let him deal with innuendo and distortion for a while.
I haven't been posting around the main NJ board in a while, but I have received several messages asking me for my opinion on the whole Christie bridge-thing. There are a few threads, but this one seems most active. So, here it is...
Do I think Christie knew what was going on?
I'm not 100% convinced that Christie knew about the plan to close the lanes. If he is half as devious as most now say he is, he would have been smart enough to allow himself plausible deniability. He can "authorize" something without actually ever knowing about it and the associated details. Think Reagan in Iran-Contra. Many polticians operate this way when it comes to more fringe activities. Based on that I doubt he ever actually knew or authorized such a thing to happen and they will never produce conclusive proof that he knew. That's if he's smart.
However, IMO, he is responsible no matter what mainly because he created a culture in his office were such an action was considered "acceptable". I can't think of any staffer or appointee who would go so grossly rogue as to think this was OK, unless they were under the impression from the boss that such activity would be acceptable. Therefore, in my mind, Christie is guilty regardless even if his only role was putting "pitbulls" into those positions.
If they were able to produce proof that he knew, it would be an instantly impeachable offense and his career would be over.
What about Wildstein's claims?
I think Christie was right that "Wildstein will do anything to save Wildstein". The claims were all central to his move to have his legal fees covered by the PANYNJ and have himself legally indemnified. His entire crux is that he was "under orders" from the Christie Administration which would mean that he was acting in his capacity as an official of the PANYNJ. He has NEVER made the assertion that Christie "knew" about the closings or reason behind them before they happened. What he (his lawyer) said was that the "Christie Administration" ordered the closings and that the governor "knew about the closings as they were happening". The last part would mean that Christie may have publicly lied in his initial statements. However, the proof may be nothing more then routine communication between the PANYNJ and the Administration. If the PANYNJ sent a notice to the Administration about the closures then this would technically constitute "Christie knowing" even if no one told him. Basically, Wildstein is a sideshow and won't be the one to bring Christie down.
What about all of the other investigations?
I see most of this as nothing but opportunistic piling on. I'm not saying that there isn't merit in all of these investigations and that they won't find anything, but all of them hitting now is certainly purposeful to a degree. For instance, the whole Hoboken thing. Did that mayor not think that such an allegation would have been something to mention during the election if she had concrete proof of anything? With all of them hitting at once, it makes it very hard for the Administration to manage all of the variables and develop viable strategies for dealing with them. Consider this aspect the "throwing a bunch of ish against the wall hoping some of it sticks". In that sense, yes this has somewhat of an element of Dems beating up on Christie on purpose, but it's not like Christie didn't essentially bring this on himself. Individually most of these would be minor annoyances, but collectively under the shadow of a larger investigation they have more weight.
What does this mean for Christie's future?
If they find any direct evidence he is done, period. Impeached, tarred, feathered, etc. and rightly so.
Absent direct evidence this entire process will at the very least derail any major legislation or initiatives he had planned for the next year or two. This is bad and hurts everyone in the state. Like Christie or not, he was able to accomplish several pieces of landmark legislation in a bipartisan manner. All of that is done until the investigations are complete and this fades away. Whatever political capital he gained with his victory is now gone. We now won't be debating actual issues, but instead focusing on scandal.
In terms of his national political aspirations, who knows. The rest of the country is already tired of hearing about it and most of the late night guys just get groans and eye rolls when they mention it. If the investigations turn up wrong doing that is implicated on Christie himself, he is done nationally even if he is not done in NJ as governor. On the other hand if they don't turn up anything, then he will be seen as "exonerated" and can use the investigations to his advantage as examples of the level of scrutiny he has passed. All of it really is for nought though as Christie has virtually ZERO chance of winning the Republican primary. Christie is a raging liberal to most southern Republicans and they hate him about as much as NJ Democrats do. I think he had a very slim chance to win the nomination to begin with and the scandals at the very least call into question his number one claim and serve as evidence that he can't control his own house.
I love your reasonable take and agree with most of it except for the part about pile-ons.
Honestly--some very good questions have been asked about various dealing for some time now, all ignored until this. The media would cover stuff and somehow, the public would look the other way. Now looking back, it all appears as though there is one giant pattern of behavior and I honestly think a possible money trail that leads back to David Samson.
I wish I could see a summary of all the things that are being looked into---but there are so many and some of the stories are alarming and do not smell of piling on.
To me, Benghazi is a pile-on type scandal. Meaning--it was bad, but put in context, not illegal and not unusual by either side.
But removing judges to give hail mary passes to associates in legal trouble? Having an EPA meeting led by the state and leading with a development project not yet on the table?
....and others including some things with his brother.
Anyway--there is something so likable about the guys' personality, that even listening to his press conference I found myself hoping it wasn't true. Then I remembered everything I read and felt, and got mad all over again. I think he is guilty of this and other offenses and when all is said and done, will be found a criminal.... criminals have no place in public office.
I think the interesting take is that the Federal probe seems more fixiated on the money angle from any Sandy funds being misused/misallocated via preference to a project or private firm with an eye to profit taking on parts of Christy's cronies...
money is trackable and likely more exists on paper that can be used to tie a can to lots of tails...
Ask yourself this--
you are the gov for a state with a BIG problem on the most important bridge in the East--for days!!!
Emergency vehicles, school buses, regular commuters---all are being slammed by some "traffic study"...
Are we really to think that someone like Christy who is supposed to be attuned to the needs of his people -- ALL his people not just Republicans--
that he WOULDN"T know about that issue???
I think it would have been much more plausible for him to come out initially and say
--yes, I knew it was causing hardships but I thought there must have been a legitimate reason to ASK for the study and cause the bottleneck---
the fact that he initially distanced himself from any knowledge and now is backtracking and saying maybe he knew something general about it--
THAT is what I find the most suspicious frankly...
I dislike all bullying, lying sacks of sh#t. Christiebots thought he could walk on water because they WANTED a tough-talking hero to stand up to those mean little teachers making all that money. Bullies rooting for a bully.
It's really pretty simple to establish his lying credentials. Did he first hear about the hubub on the GWB when the WSJ article came out on Oct. 1st or was it the day before The Record expose came out? He's all over the place and frankly not believable knowing his micro-managing ways.
And he "knew nothing" about the traffic study but knew enough to joke around about "me being out there moving around the traffic cones." In fact that's precisely what the Port Authority flunky did that week when Wildstein called up & started Operation Bridge Disaster.
Here is a good article exploring the "what did Christie know" angle:
The problem here is that the statements are seemingly contradictory unless we get clarification on exactly what Christie was referring to in each statement. There are three basic scenarios that he has replied to:
1. Did you know about the closings before they happened?
2. When did you find out the lanes were closed?
3. When did you find out the real reason the lanes were closed?
He categorically denies number one. Number two and three are the ones that mainly involve the "semantical cluster flop" I was referring to before. He is being very careful when he makes statements so that he is addressing the exact question. Unfortunately when watching videos or the news or even reading things in the paper, we almost NEVER hear the exact question, just a paraphrase and the response.
I'm not saying Christie might not be lieing, only that my intuition is that he is telling the truth based on what exactly he was being asked. He does not want to leave ANY impression that he knew the real reason behind the closures any sooner then it all went public. Whether or not he knew there were lane closures happening is a more nuanced point. He now seems to have said that he did know about the closures, but was told it was a traffic study and left it at that. Which despite everyone's feelings otherwise in hindsight, it's not exactly the governors job to manage a traffic study. Especially given that major traffic disruptions aren't exactly unusualy in NJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1944
What goes around comes around for Christie. He distorted the facts on teachers pay, benefits and pensions let him deal with innuendo and distortion for a while.
No I am not a teacher or a union member.
I would challenge the assertion that he distorted the facts about teachers and other public employees. However, that is another debate (that has already been argued) for another thread. Reforms were passed and they were done in a bipartisan manner. Most teachers I know actually thought the reforms didn't go far enough and would like to see some form of merit pay introduced and major tenure reforms enacted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanonGrace
I love your reasonable take and agree with most of it except for the part about pile-ons.
Honestly--some very good questions have been asked about various dealing for some time now, all ignored until this. The media would cover stuff and somehow, the public would look the other way. Now looking back, it all appears as though there is one giant pattern of behavior and I honestly think a possible money trail that leads back to David Samson.
I wish I could see a summary of all the things that are being looked into---but there are so many and some of the stories are alarming and do not smell of piling on.
To me, Benghazi is a pile-on type scandal. Meaning--it was bad, but put in context, not illegal and not unusual by either side.
But removing judges to give hail mary passes to associates in legal trouble? Having an EPA meeting led by the state and leading with a development project not yet on the table?
....and others including some things with his brother.
Anyway--there is something so likable about the guys' personality, that even listening to his press conference I found myself hoping it wasn't true. Then I remembered everything I read and felt, and got mad all over again. I think he is guilty of this and other offenses and when all is said and done, will be found a criminal.... criminals have no place in public office.
Where there is smoke, there is fire, right?
I don't disagree that there isn't some substance to these other scandals or issues. My only point was that they are all coming out now because of the opportunity provided by the bridge-gate scandal. Individually most of these are ho-hum "politics as usual" kinds of things that wouldn't really even dent an otherwise extremely popular governor. Even the federal Sandy money probe is something I don't think they will find much on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
I think the interesting take is that the Federal probe seems more fixiated on the money angle from any Sandy funds being misused/misallocated via preference to a project or private firm with an eye to profit taking on parts of Christy's cronies...
money is trackable and likely more exists on paper that can be used to tie a can to lots of tails...
Ask yourself this--
you are the gov for a state with a BIG problem on the most important bridge in the East--for days!!!
Emergency vehicles, school buses, regular commuters---all are being slammed by some "traffic study"...
Are we really to think that someone like Christy who is supposed to be attuned to the needs of his people -- ALL his people not just Republicans--
that he WOULDN"T know about that issue???
I think it would have been much more plausible for him to come out initially and say
--yes, I knew it was causing hardships but I thought there must have been a legitimate reason to ASK for the study and cause the bottleneck---
the fact that he initially distanced himself from any knowledge and now is backtracking and saying maybe he knew something general about it--
THAT is what I find the most suspicious frankly...
To the money part...of course the Feds are going to chase the money. Like you said, money leaves trails. It may be hard to prove actual wrongdoing on the part of Christie, but they may find enough for others to bludgeon him with the information.
To the bridge part...see my response to EBWick above. I'm not 100% convinced he has actually engaged in double-talk or deception over what he knew and when.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
