http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/04/bridgegate-deliberations-day-5/
Your link doesn’t work, maybe they changed it.
Here’s one that currently works.
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:
Good. I hope they enjoy their little vacation. Assholes.
The OP’s title:
Bridge-gate Trial: FINALLY–with a thread started over three years ago.
Not quite:
I’m curious: any idea of what they have been doing since then and who is paying their legal bills?
SCOTUS reverses the Federal convictions of the two Christie aides: Bridgegate scandal: Supreme Court throws out convictions of New Jersey officails | CNN Politics
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.
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.
Shame on Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer for their naked corruption and partisanship. They should all be impeached.
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.
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.