# Did Christie (or his staff) intentionally cause the Fort Lee traffic jam? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 9, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351 "2014-01-09T13:34:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/941 "2014-03-13T17:42:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I don’t see a difference between what Limbaugh and Maddow do for a living. Let me help you. Maddow deals in facts, has researchers that compare and evaluate sources, is bright and personable, allows opposing views to speak and debate with her, and corrects and apologizes for any factual errors that somehow sneak through. Limbaugh either doesn’t care about facts or wouldn’t know one if it bit him in the ass. He does little research other than try to find the stories that could be misrepresnted or outright lied about to smear Obama. He allows mainly only his brain dead dittoheads on the air to fawn over him, acts like the ignorant prick that he is and pretends that he never makes mistakes. Other than that, exactly the same. ---
**Author:** ![MacCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maccat/32/216_2.png) [@MacCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacCat)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/942 "2014-03-13T18:27:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Who is this “we” you are referring to and when did Port Authority’s Wildstein and Baroni become Christie “employees”? I was referring to the posters that have been most active in this thread, and I typed employees when I meant appointees. I accidentally hit Submit Reply when I meant to Preview Post. So. Some of the _many “plausible” possibilities_ I requested above? And maybe the cite I requested previously for the claim **Originally Posted by doorhinge**? _“While the feds are desperately seeking Kelly’s EX in-laws and Stepien’s landlord, I still think they would be farther ahead if they offered Kelly a deal.”_ **Originally Posted by MacCat** : Please cite some examples, or even one, of desperately. Your one response to a request for a cite for your claim _“There isn’t even any evidence that Christie is guilty of the most often cited, unproven rumor of Christie wanting to punish Sokolich for not supporting him.”_ was "I humbly concede the “most” part. I change it to “the often cited”. Yet you did it _again_ with… **Originally Posted by doorhinge** _"Are you aware that Christie closed the GW Bridge to punish Ft Lee Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing Christie’s re-election bid? It’s been **reported by most, if not all, of the media.** _" **Originally Posted by MacCat** : And cite for the bolded above… Your use of words fraught with inaccuracies, innuendo and disdain as well as your ignoring requests for cites for what you say will be called out. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/943 "2014-03-13T20:58:48Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > “Entertainer” is an adequate description of them. No. The context in which you use it indicates that you are deliberately attempting to distract from the fact that the reporters mentioned deliver facts. By calling them entertainers, you are equating them with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. By that reasoning, if Responsible Reporters are ‘entertainers’, and Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers, and Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s entertainment deals with issues in the news, then Limbaugh and Hannity are Responsible Reporters. Which they are not. It was pointed out to you that such attempts to obscure reality are often used by Conservatives, and that those attempts are as transparent as a very clear thing. Why, then, do you continue to try to use tactics that, as you have been shown, do not work here? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/944 "2014-03-14T01:15:43Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > No. The context in which you use it indicates that you are deliberately attempting to distract from the fact that the reporters mentioned deliver facts. By calling them entertainers, you are equating them with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. By that reasoning, if Responsible Reporters are ‘entertainers’, and Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers, and Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s entertainment deals with issues in the news, then Limbaugh and Hannity are Responsible Reporters. > > Which they are not. > > It was pointed out to you that such attempts to obscure reality are often used by Conservatives, and that those attempts are as transparent as a very clear thing. Why, then, do you continue to try to use tactics that, as you have been shown, do not work here? How do you feel about the Great NJ Lane Reassignment debacle? Or Christie? Or the Port Authority? Or New Jersey? The “context” that you refer to is your interpretation. I wanted to know which commentator in the MSNBC evening line up is considered a news reporter? They are considered television hosts, political commentators, pundits, news anchors, but not news reporters. Television hosts, political commentators, pundits, news anchors are entertainers and the term “entertainer” is an adequate description of them. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/945 "2014-03-14T01:23:21Z")
> [@MacCat](#): > > I was referring to the posters that have been most active in this thread, and I typed employees when I meant appointees. I accidentally hit Submit Reply when I meant to Preview Post. (shortened for clarity) And you would like to hold me responsible for your errors? Or read your mind? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_jeffrey_lebowski/32/215_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/946 "2014-03-14T01:24:00Z")
“You” should “learn” that “quotes” are not “always” needed. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/947 "2014-03-14T01:33:08Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > It was pointed out to you that such attempts to obscure reality are often used by Conservatives, and that those attempts are as transparent as a very clear thing. Why, then, do you continue to try to use tactics that, as you have been shown, do not work here? Because the Official Republican Apologist(r) Social Media script doesn’t have a response for getting called out with actual facts. So far it’s been fairly successful, more’s the pity. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/948 "2014-03-14T01:37:32Z")
> [@MacCat](#): > > …So. Some of the _many “plausible” possibilities_ I requested above? Why would you do with more plausible possibilities? The current ones are confusing enough and none have been proven. They all start with the unverified assumption that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich. Christie wanted to punish Sokolich because: Sokolich wouldn’t support Christie for reelection. Christie disagreed with Democrats over state Supreme Court nominations. Christie wanted to somehow affect the Harbor Lights project. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/949 "2014-03-14T01:39:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](#): > > “You” should “learn” that “quotes” are not “always” needed. Are you attempting to “emphasize” certain “words” in your post? That’s what I do also. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/950 "2014-03-14T01:44:11Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you attempting to “emphasize” certain “words” in your post? That’s what I do also. Quotation marks are not for emphasis. They are to show a quote, irony, or to show that you are using a word in a non-traditional way. So, when you use quotation marks in your “arguments,” they are generally unnecessary, while the quotation marks I just used are very necessary. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/951 "2014-03-14T01:49:38Z")
> [@MacCat](#): > > …Your one response to a request for a cite for your claim _“There isn’t even any evidence that Christie is guilty of the most often cited, unproven rumor of Christie wanting to punish Sokolich for not supporting him.”_ was "I humbly concede the “most” part. I change it to “the often cited”. What part of my correction didn’t you understand? The unproven rumor that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich is often cited. I’m currently discussing several versions of that unproven rumor with other posters. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/952 "2014-03-14T02:02:55Z")
> [@MacCat](#): > > …The evidence is being discovered through painstaking investigation, made even more drawn out by his crony appointees claiming the 5th. It might not be just one of the scenarios, but two or three. I lean towards a combination of Maddow’s and Kornacki’s and not so much the “Christie wanting to punish Sokolich” version. MSNBC evening lineup entertainers Maddow and Kornacki both start their “versions” of the unproven “Christie wanted to punish Sokolich” rumors with - Christie wanted to punish Sokolich because (insert updated version here). ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/953 "2014-03-14T02:10:56Z")
> [@MacCat](#): > > …Yet you did it _again_ with… > > **Originally Posted by doorhinge** _"Are you aware that Christie closed the GW Bridge to punish Ft Lee Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing Christie’s re-election bid? It’s been **reported by most, if not all, of the media.** _" > > **Originally Posted by MacCat** : And cite for the bolded above… By golly, I did do it again. There’s just no excuse for sloppy workmanship. I’ll try really, really hard not to do it again. Thanks for pointing it out. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/954 "2014-03-14T04:00:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > How do you feel about the Great NJ Lane Reassignment debacle? Or Christie? Or the Port Authority? Or New Jersey? Irrelevant. > [@doorhinge](#): > > The “context” that you refer to is your interpretation. I wanted to know which commentator in the MSNBC evening line up is considered a news reporter? They are considered television hosts, political commentators, pundits, news anchors, but not news reporters. Television hosts, political commentators, pundits, news anchors are entertainers and the term “entertainer” is an adequate description of them. By calling them ‘entertainers’, you imply that they cannot be trusted since they are only entertainers and not news presenters who are delivering factual information. In other words, you’re implying that they are lying for the purpose of entertaining an audience. You are also attempting to create a false equivalent between news presenters and people like Limbaugh and Hannity, who actually _are_ (and they admit it) ‘entertainers’. It’s not working, and it doesn’t work with people who can see the difference between ‘entertainers’ and news presenters. It only works with people who can’t. ---
**Author:** ![MacCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maccat/32/216_2.png) [@MacCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacCat)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/955 "2014-03-14T05:14:37Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > What part of my correction didn’t you understand? Where did I ever say I didn’t understand it? > [@doorhinge](#): > > MSNBC evening lineup entertainers Maddow and Kornacki both start their “versions” of the unproven “Christie wanted to punish Sokolich” rumors with - Christie wanted to punish Sokolich because (insert updated version here). BS. Their versions both say that there are alternate likely reasons for the scandal rather than the early and unlikely Revenge on Sokolich theory that was early speculation. From [Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/rachel-maddow-theory-christie-bridge-scandal-weinberg-2014-1) > [@](#): > > Her theory is that the Christie administration targeted Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D), the state Senate Democratic leader, for political retribution — **not, as has been alleged, the mayor of Fort Lee.** [Kornacki](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mayor-christie-camp-held-sandy-money-hostage) suggested revenge on Dawn Zimmer is a possible motive. > [@](#): > > In an exclusive interview, Zimmer broke her silence and named Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno and Richard Constable, Christie’s community affairs commissioner, as the two officials who delivered messages on behalf of a governor she had long supported. “The bottom line is, it’s not fair for the governor to hold Sandy funds hostage for the City of Hoboken because he wants me to give back to one private developer,” she said Saturday on UP w/ Steve Kornacki. “ And cite for them saying “_ **Christie** wanted to punish Sokolich_”… > [@doorhinge](#): > > And you would like to hold me responsible for your errors? Or read your mind? :rolleyes: Your “_Port Authority’s Wildstein is involved. And there’s proof. Port Authority’s Baroni is involved. Kelly is involved._” is obvious to almost anyone following Bridgegate. There was absolutely no reason for you to say that other than to pad your post and that’s why I said “Yes, _we all know_ those three Christie employees are involved.” Really requires mind reading :rolleyes: _I said_ I typed employees when I meant appointees, and _I said_ I accidentally hit Submit Reply instead of Preview Post. I would have caught it when previewing. \*How is that in _any_ possible scenario **holding you responsible**? - :smack::smack::smack: > [@doorhinge](#): > > Why would you do with more plausible possibilities? Since _I am_ a mind reader, I’ll venture you really meant _what_ would I do with more plausible possibilities?. Nothing, I just want you to back up _your claim_ “There are many “plausible” possibilities.” Tell us some. You throw out things and don’t back them up. > [@doorhinge](#): > > The current ones are confusing enough and none have been proven. > > They all start with the unverified assumption that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich. Not to everybody and not yet. No they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_jeffrey_lebowski/32/215_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/956 "2014-03-14T18:41:40Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you attempting to “emphasize” certain “words” in your post? That’s what I do also. _Italics_ or underlining or _even_ asterisks are useful for emphasizing certain words. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/957 "2014-03-14T18:43:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post > > The current ones are confusing enough and none have been proven. > > They all start with the unverified assumption that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich. Every time Maddow mentions the controversy she points out that the motives for the Kelly email are a mystery. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/958 "2014-03-14T18:55:59Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Irrelevant. > > By calling them ‘entertainers’, you imply that they cannot be trusted since they are only entertainers and not news presenters who are delivering factual information. In other words, you’re implying that they are lying for the purpose of entertaining an audience. You are also attempting to create a false equivalent between news presenters and people like Limbaugh and Hannity, who actually _are_ (and they admit it) ‘entertainers’. > > It’s not working, and it doesn’t work with people who can see the difference between ‘entertainers’ and news presenters. It only works with people who can’t. It’s not irrelevant in a thread titled, “Did Christie (or his staff) intentionally cause the Fort Lee traffic jam?”. You must have a very low opinion of “entertainers”. Why do you believe that entertainers are liars? Television hosts, political commentators, pundits, and news anchors are entertainers but that doesn’t automatically make them liars. You made several assumptions about what I “implied”. Your interpretation of what I “implied” following the term “in other words”, is your words. I’m not responsible for your interpretation. While I believe that Maddow is far and away the pick of the litter of the MSNBC evening lineup, that doesn’t mean her statements are not to be questioned. I find it interesting that TV hosts, political commentators, bloggers, and pundits can start with an unverified rumor, that Christie was punishing Sokolich, and attempted to prove the unverified first part by adding an additional, unverified second part. That’s like saying that 3 plus 2 equals 7 because 7 minus 3 equals 2. No, wait. It must be that 7 minus 2 equals 3. There is no evidence that 3 plus 2 equals 7 or that Christie was trying to punish Sokolich. As a side note - I’ve only heard British news reporters and political commentators refer to the spokesmodels hired by media outlets to read the news as “news readers”. Maddow hardly qualifies as a simple “news reader”. I don’t consider her to be a “news reporter”, either. She’s a political commentator and pundit. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/959 "2014-03-14T19:05:21Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Every time Maddow mentions the controversy she points out that the motives for the Kelly email are a mystery. Good for her. Does she also mention, every time, that there is no evidence that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich I) for not supporting Christie’s election, II) because Christie was fighting with Democrats about state Supreme Court nominations, III) Christie was threatening the Harbor Lights project? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351/960 "2014-03-14T19:10:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](#): > > _Italics_ or underlining or _even_ asterisks are useful for emphasizing certain words. I’ve used double quotes to emphasize words for so long that it might prove too difficult to change. Would you consider thinking of them as “air quotes”? You know, those finger gestures that people sometimes use tete-a-tete. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-christie-or-his-staff-intentionally-cause-the-fort-lee-traffic-jam/678351.md?page=49)