Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-25-2016, 12:15 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,779
Great. We're in agreement. People found guilty in the bridgegate trial should be punished.

It seemed at points that you were trying to say more than that, but if that's all you're saying I won't disagree with you. I can't imagine who would disagree with idea that people guilty of crimes should be punished as a general rule.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 09-25-2016 at 12:15 AM.
  #52  
Old 09-27-2016, 08:13 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,779
Wildstein testifies that Christie knew.
  #53  
Old 09-27-2016, 11:27 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I wish I could believe that this will ultimately result in a conviction of Christie. Does anyone not think he's guilty? The problem is proving it.
  #54  
Old 10-05-2016, 11:28 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 38,264
Christie hates being called a fat fuck.
Funny how all those Republicans bravely fighting political correctness can't take it.
Quote:
You don’t call Chris Christie fat and get away with it.

Staffers for the portly New Jersey governor were ordered to freeze out elected officials who offended their boss — including a county freeholder who called him a “fat f–k” in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, it emerged Wednesday at the Bridgegate trial.
  #55  
Old 10-05-2016, 11:34 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,871
The freeholder was contacted by the local media and disputes the claim about him calling the governor a "fat fuck." He actually called him a fat motherfucker.
  #56  
Old 10-05-2016, 11:47 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I wish I could believe that this will ultimately result in a conviction of Christie. Does anyone not think he's guilty? The problem is proving it.
That testimony, even if believed, does not establish his guilt of a criminal offense.

Last edited by Bricker; 10-05-2016 at 11:48 PM.
  #57  
Old 10-06-2016, 09:07 AM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
That testimony, even if believed, does not establish his guilt of a criminal offense.
His people are facing criminal charges. Are you saying that his ORDERING those actions is not a criminal offense, or just KNOWING about the actions is not a criminal offense? Or what, exactly?
  #58  
Old 10-06-2016, 09:25 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Sorry, but I'm with Saint Cad here
Well, if there are two people who need the modified version, I'll go to the trouble of providing it:

Quote:
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey knew that three of his top officials were involved in a plan to shut down lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge as it was happening and that the closings were intended to punish a local mayor for declining to support him, federal prosecutors said on Monday.
(Is there a way to get blink tags to work here? I really think this is a case that calls for them....)
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 10-06-2016 at 09:26 AM.
  #59  
Old 10-13-2016, 12:12 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,347
Christie one step closer to indictment.

Let's hope the prosecutor has some guts.
  #60  
Old 10-21-2016, 03:12 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,779
Bridget Kelly, who was famously thrown under the bus by Christie, reaches out from under there drag Christie along with her.

link
  #61  
Old 11-04-2016, 10:42 AM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,444
Quote:
Two former allies of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have been convicted in a plot to use traffic jams at the George Washington Bridge for political retaliation.

Bridget Kelly, Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, a Christie appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were found guilty Friday of all counts against them.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/...rations-day-5/
  #62  
Old 11-04-2016, 11:07 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
Your link doesn't work, maybe they changed it.

Here's one that currently works.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/...baroni-guilty/
  #63  
Old 11-04-2016, 11:11 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Your link doesn't work, maybe they changed it.

Here's one that currently works.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/...baroni-guilty/
I'm not sorry they were convicted, and I hope they can bring the Governor down too.

However, holy crap, I don't think they need to get crucified:

Quote:
The most serious charges carry up to 20 years in prison.
  #64  
Old 03-29-2017, 02:35 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,444
Quote:
Two former allies of Gov. Chris Christie were sentenced Wednesday to prison terms for their roles in the George Washington Bridge lane closures, a bizarre political stunt that was designed to help the governor’s career but ended up halting his rapid march toward the White House.

Bill Baroni, a former Republican state senator who served as Christie’s top appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was sentenced to a 24 months of incarceration. Bridget Anne Kelly, Baroni’s co-defendant and a former deputy chief of staff to Christie, was sentenced in the afternoon to 18 months in prison.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...tencing-236638
  #65  
Old 03-31-2017, 01:32 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,810
Good. I hope they enjoy their little vacation. Assholes.
  #66  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:30 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,444
The OP's title:
Bridge-gate Trial: FINALLY--with a thread started over three years ago.

Not quite:
Quote:
The Supreme Court seemed prepared Tuesday to reverse the convictions of two state officials behind the Bridgegate scandal that created monumental traffic jams in 2013 on the George Washington Bridge and tarnished the image of then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Several of the justices appeared to be skeptical of the prosecution's theory of the case that the two committed fraud by lying about their reason for closing the bridge. The officials said they needed to conduct a study of traffic patterns, but a jury found that the real reason was to punish the mayor of a community served by the bridge who refused to endorse the Republican governor's re-election.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...-case-n1115541

I'm curious: any idea of what they have been doing since then and who is paying their legal bills?

Last edited by PastTense; 01-14-2020 at 08:34 PM.
  #67  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:50 AM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,114
SCOTUS reverses the Federal convictions of the two Christie aides: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/polit...ion/index.html
  #68  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
SCOTUS is legalizing corruption. Bonkers. And just hurtling us even faster towards the time when Americans don't see the SCOTUS as an actual arbitrator of law and the Constitution, but rather just another political institution serving powerful and wealthy interests. Also known as the end of a functioning democratic republic system.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-07-2020 at 11:40 AM.
  #69  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:44 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
SCOTUS is legalizing corruption. Bonkers. And just hurtling us even faster towards the time when Americans don't see the SCOTUS as an actual arbitrator of law and the Constitution, but rather just another political institution serving powerful and wealthy interests. Also known as the end of a functioning democratic republic system.
I *think* they are saying federal law currently does not cover this. They are not saying there shouldn't be a law for it nor are they saying these people can not be prosecuted under state law (assuming there is state law that covers it).

I agree it is alarming. From what I gathered the Supreme Court basically said these people totally did what is alleged and what is alleged appears wrong but federal law does not cover this. State law should. It's up to them.

Sucks.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #70  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:12 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Yeah, the fact that the decision was unanimous suggests that partisanship wasn't the main issue.

The problem is that our Constitutional Republic is built on the idea that in the end Democracy will cure all ills, that corruption will be fought at the ballot box, and the public will demand that anti-corruption laws be passed. The problem is that those rules no longer apply. The public has decided that corruption is just fine so long as the politician hates/hurts the people they want them to.
  #71  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:29 PM
furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
SCOTUS is legalizing corruption. Bonkers. And just hurtling us even faster towards the time when Americans don't see the SCOTUS as an actual arbitrator of law and the Constitution, but rather just another political institution serving powerful and wealthy interests. Also known as the end of a functioning democratic republic system.
Shame on Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer for their naked corruption and partisanship. They should all be impeached.
__________________
"I don't debate about God anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist. The argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter; and honestly I don't care." - Donald Miller
  #72  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:01 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I *think* they are saying federal law currently does not cover this. They are not saying there shouldn't be a law for it nor are they saying these people can not be prosecuted under state law (assuming there is state law that covers it).

I agree it is alarming. From what I gathered the Supreme Court basically said these people totally did what is alleged and what is alleged appears wrong but federal law does not cover this. State law should. It's up to them.

Sucks.
Agreed. If you read the unanimous opinion, it is pretty straightforward why this type of corruption is not covered under the law. The Government is attempting a very nuanced position regarding taking "something of value" as written in the statute.

As Kagan noted, under the statute as written, if you play a prank on a government employee, you could be charged under the government's interpretation because you "stole" the productive work time from the government.

This has been the deal for at least 20 years. If Congress wants to write a general corruption statute (and I'm not sure they should; this was a NJ thing that NJ should solve) then it can.
  #73  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:06 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As Kagan noted, under the statute as written, if you play a prank on a government employee, you could be charged under the government's interpretation because you "stole" the productive work time from the government.
I see why the SCOTUS did what they did and (not that anyone cares) I agree with them.

For argument's sake I would suggest this is where prosecutorial discretion should come into play in an ideal world. (A debate over whether that discretion is a good thing or not is another debate.)

Was it a kid that phone pranked a government worker and caused three minutes of lostr time or did someone spread feathers all over a highway that caused it to close and needed a dozen workers a day to clean it up?

Both caused the government to "spend money" because a prank was pulled but the degree should matter.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #74  
Old 05-09-2020, 06:05 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I see why the SCOTUS did what they did and (not that anyone cares) I agree with them.

For argument's sake I would suggest this is where prosecutorial discretion should come into play in an ideal world. (A debate over whether that discretion is a good thing or not is another debate.)

Was it a kid that phone pranked a government worker and caused three minutes of lostr time or did someone spread feathers all over a highway that caused it to close and needed a dozen workers a day to clean it up?

Both caused the government to "spend money" because a prank was pulled but the degree should matter.
Ok, we'll leave prosecutorial discretion for another day.

Although, I might agree with your distinction if you proposed it as law (and made the law state more specific boundaries instead of leaving it up to discretion) the opinion adheres to the plain text of the law and over twenty years of case law interpreting the statute.

I have to convert "something of value" for my own use. That's the best reading of it. It's a bribery, kickback, or self-dealing "something of value." Bribes and kickbacks are obvious. As Kagan noted, if I am the mayor of a small town and have the city workers come and do my yardwork, then I am getting "something of value." I would have otherwise have to have paid out of pocket for a kid to cut my grass or expend my time in doing so. Again, pretty clear the economic value.

But if I close down a bridge to fuck with the mayor of another town, I don't get "something of value." Yes, the government had to hire more toll workers, and hire an engineer to do the bullshit "study" I recommended, and I got personal satisfaction (an intangible value) from fucking with the other mayor, but those arguments only prove that the application is too broad.

Every little passive aggressive jab against the government costs it increased employee time, and every time I fuck with the government it gives me personal satisfaction. If those were enough to come within the law's reach, then there is not much conduct directed against the government that would not come under that law.

But I do agree with you. This is an outrage and politics at its worst. NJ should have a law on the books that has criminal and civil penalties for this. The fact that these government employees felt that they could freely email each other about using commuter traffic as a political game angers me as a free citizen. At least after this incident, perhaps the aggrieved parties can get money compensation, or if not, make sure that it doesn't happen in the future. But I'm not sure that a one-size-fits-all from the feds is needed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017