Really, Chris Christie was sunk from the beginning, simply by being governor of New Jersey. New Jersey has a reputation for corruption, and I’m pretty sure most of the rest of the country would never give serious consideration to any NJ governor, Democrat or Republican.
There are two strategies available for a GOP presidential candidate:
-
Go full right-wing wacko-bird in the primaries to get the nomination and then somehow make it through the general election with the accumulated baggage
-
Go softball in the primaries hoping to survive as the right-wing wacko birds self-immolate and then bring “moderate bipartisan” cred to the general election
Obviously, only the latter strategy was ever an option for Christie, given his existing record as governor, so he had to burnish it as best he could by arm-twisting as many Democratic endorsements as possible.
Or you can try pulling a Romney – try to out-wingnut the wingnuts during the primaries, and steer slightly more toward the center for the general. But he couln’t pull himself enough back from the edge that he put himself on.
Christie wasn’t running for President. He was running for Governor, and won by 22 points. He didn’t need the Mayor’s endorsement.
I think Steve’s point was that he was trying to pile up Dem endorsements in his gubernatorial race in order to show his moderate/electability cred when running for President.
I won’t venture a guess as to the truth of this, being unable to read Christie’s mind - not that I’d want to. But it would make sense.
Shaking hands? Christie HUGGED Obama. All his primary opponents need to do is run attack ads that show the hug, mixed with shots of the Bridgegate gridlock. Maybe throw in a couple of stills of Wildstein smirking as he took the Fifth, or Christie arriving at his son’s baseball game in a state helicopter.
I’m guessing that one of the other candidates will make a Bridgegate jab within the first 15 minutes of the first GOP debate. “In my state, we don’t create traffic jams to score political points.”
Christie is either delusional to think he has a viable path to POTUS, or he’s looking forward to spending a few months as a human piñata.
He may need to focus simply on how to stay Governor now, especially if he’s named an unindicted co-conspirator - there’s no way to defend against that or clear his name publicly, even if he’s off the hook legally. Fishman may have him under an ultimatum (either resign with some dignity or get impeached without it), which will expire soon one way or another, explaining the current lack of public candor.
Where are you getting this? There’s no way he’s going to be indicted over this. It’s just far too juicy – it it was true it would have been leaked long ago.
I said it’s still possible he’ll be named an “unindicted co-conspirator”, which might be just as fatal to his career.
Sorry, no way a proescutor is going to invite a firestorm of hell on top of himself by naming Christie as an unindicted anything. If there’s anything solid on him, he’ll be indicted – if there’s not, he won’t.
It wasn’t about needing the endorsement.
Worked for Nixon, didn’t it?
I have no idea what this means, and I’m not seeing any parallels between the stories. For on thing, there were scads of evidence against Nixon, including his own voice on tape. Most of it hadn’t been made public yet, but he knew it would have if he went through a trial.
This is different from Nixon. Prosecutors know they have the authority to indict a sitting governor. But even a zealot like Ken Starr, let alone a more cautious figure like Leon Jaworski, thought it better to leave it to the House to decide whether to impeach a President rather than press his case.
One of the theories at the time was that it was all about money - something about ease of access to a real estate development…and that the endorsement was only secondary.
Maybe, though how much is a four year-old endorsement from an unknown local-level Dem official in a campaign for a different office worth? I guess it might help a little, but it hardly seems worth the trouble of the proposed scheme, even disregarding the risk of getting caught.
I remember that theory was floating around when the sandal first broke. But there doesn’t seem to be much evidence for it. Wildstein’s plea and the email exchanges just talk about punishing the Mayor.
First of all, you’re counting wrong. Endorsement (or lack of it): fall 2013. Campaign for nomination: already underway, spring 2015. First votes: January 2016. So a year and a half to a little over 2 years, not 4 years.
Second, you’re right that one endorsement from one local-level Dem official wouldn’t have meant much by itself. But their object was probably more to get a* whole bunch* of such endorsements, and use them collectively as evidence of appeal across party lines, hence electability.
From there, I suspect their sheer love of bullying took over when targeted Dems failed to endorse Christie.
Its all about the failure of the developers of Hudson Lights to accurately assess their situation. Had they intelligence and probity, they would have realized that the path to successful relations with the New Jersey government neatly coincides with the selection of correct legal representation. The firm of Wolff & Samson has a proven record of superior negotiating skills and verbal excellence, as well as a friendly relationship with elected officials. Officials who are impressed with that firm’s longstanding commitment to good government, as demonstrated by their shrewd policy of campaign contribution and support.
The real estate development project known as Hudson Lights was, we may reasonably assume, led and guided by persons of inferior intelligence and probity. Weak minded and naive, they failed to grasp the advantages offered by a firm of proven worth, Wolff and Samson. They did not engage those worthies, they did not avail themselves of the clear advantages offered.
(emphasis added, as in “Duh!”…)
Had they wit and intelligence enough to obtain the proper and expected representation, it would have shown that due diligence was practiced. New Jersey regulators would have been reassured and would not have required any traffic study, which had the unfortunate effect of sending shudders of doubt through the investment community. Had they chosen wisely, New Jersey government might well have regarded such a study as needless, since they could trust the sound judgement and probity of such proven worthies.
I do not make any direct accusation of corruption in high places. I am, however, perfectly willing to insinuate, imply and suggest. I do not wish to entangle myself with a high-powered law firm, I have enough trouble just dealing with Bricker…
I am not a fan of Chris Christie, and don’t think he has a chance to win the nomination anyway (due to his moderate views and abrasive persona). (I will vote for him if he runs for reelection anyway, as “better than the alternative”, but he’s not what he initially looked like he might be, unfortunately.)
But that said, I think the most likely scenario is that Christie is telling the truth and that he didn’t know what his aides were up to. (Someone observed earlier in the thread that the traffic was all over the news - this is a misunderstanding of the situation. The traffic was well-known but was attributed to a “traffic study”, and in any event traffic in NJ is extremely common.)
I disagree with people who think Christie has to have known or should have known what his aides were up to. The whole point of having aides is so that the top guy doesn’t have to get all involved with every detail of what they do, and they generally have a lot of autonomy. If they would make major decisions they would obviously be expected to inform Christie, but closing some lanes on a state highway is the type of thing that they would be expected to be able to do on their own. You show me a governor whose aides can’t shut down some roads on their own and you’re showing me an inefficient micromanager.
It would appear that none of these guys have turned on Christie despite a lot of advantage for themselves in doing so, and there’s no hard evidence at all of a link to Christie. Both of these are unusual considering the level of scrutiny that this has had.
IMO, the speculation that he must have known about it (let alone authorized it) is just wishful thinking from political opponents.
He had, and has, a vested interest in not knowing the particulars of what his people were doing in his name, true - the term is* plausible deniability*. But he did know the kind of people he was picking for the job, didn’t he? And they did have some idea of the kind of things he wanted them to do, even if it was never spoken, didn’t he? Taking the fall for the boss is part of the job, as long as you’re getting paid for it.