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.
His office was keeping detailed Excel spreadsheets on how "endorsement" discussions with Democratic mayors were going throughout 2013. I believe he was keenly aware of which mayors were "playing ball" and which weren't, The fact that Bridget said "let's tie up the bridge" in August means that specific penalties for mayors who didn't play along were discussed ahead of time. Was he there for those discussions? It's hard to say. But Bridget & others were certainly talking about it in mid-2013. She just didn't wake up on an August day & say "time to tie up the GWB"
Prevaricate would imply that Christie is purposefully acting evasive when answering the questions. My stance is that he is not. He is simply responding to the questions as asked and is being careful...not evasive...to avoid giving any inclination that he knew anything about the reasons behind the closures before it went public. Have you ever seen a press conference live? Especially one where the media smells blood? Five reporters can all ask what is basically the same question with just slight wording changes to provide different context and implied meaning and it's all a purposeful tactic to try and trip up the person answering. That is the "semantical cluster flop" I was referring to. Obviously you want to assume that Christie is acting shady, but I don't think he is when it comes to what he knew and when.
He could of course solve all of this by making a definitive statement or providing his own timeline of events. However, that isn't going to happen with all of the various investigations. As soon as investigations are launched, everything tightens down to ensure that no one unwittingly makes conflicting statements.
Quote:
His office was keeping detailed Excel spreadsheets on how "endorsement" discussions with Democratic mayors were going throughout 2013. I believe he was keenly aware of which mayors were "playing ball" and which weren't, The fact that Bridget said "let's tie up the bridge" in August means that specific penalties for mayors who didn't play along were discussed ahead of time. Was he there for those discussions? It's hard to say. But Bridget & others were certainly talking about it in mid-2013. She just didn't wake up on an August day & say "time to tie up the GWB"
I don't disagree with any of that. People like Bridget and Wildstein are behind the scenes petty power brokers. Wildstein especially liked to paint himself as "the man behind the curtain". These types of people are integral to the efforts of both parties and are in the coattails of every powerful politician. They are also generally given a lot of leeway to do what needs to be done.
In this case, like I said, I blame Christie for allowing a culture to exist where such an action was considered acceptable. However, I seriously doubt he knew about it ahead of time and I doubt he would have even given passive approval for such an idea.
Prevaricate would imply that Christie is purposefully acting evasive when answering the questions. My stance is that he is not. He is simply responding to the questions as asked and is being careful...not evasive...to avoid giving any inclination that he knew anything about the reasons behind the closures before it went public. Have you ever seen a press conference live? Especially one where the media smells blood? Five reporters can all ask what is basically the same question with just slight wording changes to provide different context and implied meaning and it's all a purposeful tactic to try and trip up the person answering. That is the "semantical cluster flop" I was referring to. Obviously you want to assume that Christie is acting shady, but I don't think he is when it comes to what he knew and when.
He could of course solve all of this by making a definitive statement or providing his own timeline of events. However, that isn't going to happen with all of the various investigations. As soon as investigations are launched, everything tightens down to ensure that no one unwittingly makes conflicting statements.
I don't disagree with any of that. People like Bridget and Wildstein are behind the scenes petty power brokers. Wildstein especially liked to paint himself as "the man behind the curtain". These types of people are integral to the efforts of both parties and are in the coattails of every powerful politician. They are also generally given a lot of leeway to do what needs to be done.
In this case, like I said, I blame Christie for allowing a culture to exist where such an action was considered acceptable. However, I seriously doubt he knew about it ahead of time and I doubt he would have even given passive approval for such an idea.
But like me, you're guessing on his depth of knowledge. I can't believe they were "trusted advisors" one minute and then lying scoundrels who acted unilaterally the next. That just doesn't square with the hands-on CC that people in Trenton know. A fire union rep. mildly criticizes him on 101.5 and the next day he hears how po'd Christie was. Is that a Gov. out-to-lunch not knowing what's going on around NJ? His amnesia on Bridgegate doesn't pass the Linden refinery smell test.
And why do you suppose Wildstein wants immunity & Bridget's hiding behind a lawyer?
But like me, you're guessing on his depth of knowledge. I can't believe they were "trusted advisors" one minute and then lying scoundrels who acted unilaterally the next. That just doesn't square with the hands-on CC that people in Trenton know. A fire union rep. mildly criticizes him on 101.5 and the next day he hears how po'd Christie was. Is that a Gov. out-to-lunch not knowing what's going on around NJ? His amnesia on Bridgegate doesn't pass the Linden refinery smell test.
I don't think for one minute that Christie is as "hands-on" as he tried to make himself out to be. No governor, president, etc. is; it's impossible. Christie, like Obama, Clinton, Corzine, Bush, etc., relies upon the people he puts around himself to "run things". They filter everything that comes his way. He was "po'd" at the fire untion rep because someone told him about it, not because he's all up in everyones business 24/7 even if that's the image he wants to portray. In that light of how administrations actually work, yes I can see where Christie didn't know what was going on with the bridge.
Again though, this is almost as much of a condemnation as anything else. CC picked those people to be his filters and run things for him. You're looking for the Sword of Damocles to drop, but I'm saying that just the fact it is hanging there is enough.
Quote:
And why do you suppose Wildstein wants immunity & Bridget's hiding behind a lawyer?
My guess is that they don't want to go to prison and/or be sued for everything their worth. I'm really surprised that you think that either of their actions are unusual or evidence of something deeper.
I think the plan started in the re-election campaign staff. Samson for some reason entered the fray after Foye from NY got involved. I do not think he was in on the planning. The question is why did he even step in? Was he led to believe the Governor had involvement? Did he speak to the Governor? If you recall the NY Post reported on a telephone call from Christie to Cuomo about Foye.
Wildstein's a nobody now ("I was an athlete & class president. i don't know what he was doing"), but CC created a job out of whole cloth for this "loser" at $150,000 clams a year? Quite generous for a guy he "hardly knows. i barely talk to him"
The IRS thing...i think a lot of investigation has happened. I don't think they purposely targeted one side over the other, i think the numbers led them to that. I do think, as pretty much all auditors would have done, they purposely chose key words to search for as "more suspicious". If it's found that it was some political vendetta that rolls up to the WH chief of staff of Obama...i would be more vocal. Maybe the difference is some people believe that's the case so they're outraged, or they want to believe it so they'll keep looking for it to be proven, and if the media isn't still looking, that proves a liberal bias. But to me, that falls into conspiracy theory terrority.
oh my gosh, 2 years of lois lerner's emails lost. who would have imagined? oh those crazy conspiracy theorists thinking conservative groups were targeted, what nuts.
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.
