Of course. Politicians associate with people who have their own agendas and might not be as loyal as the politician hoped they would be. But it doesn’t prove that Christie was actually involved. If Christie is involved, it’s up to the voters in NJ to deal with the situation. If Christie’s not involved, it’s still up to the voters in NJ to deal with the situation. They may or may not reelect him Governor of NJ.
If Christie was involved, it may be up to juror’s in NJ (or federal court) to deal with it, not just voters.
Right. Like I said way back on the first page:
Let’s assume a rogue staffer ordered the lane reductions. What would happen?
Day 1: Massive traffic jams
Day 2: Morning newspapers and TV filled with articles about traffic jams.
For any other state in the country the governor and his top staff would see these articles and TV reports and apply massive immediate pressure on the relevant departments to stop these closures resulting in
Day 3: Lanes reopened; situation back to normal.
Why didn’t this happen in New Jersey? In fact the lanes never reopened due to New Jersey pressure–they reopened because of a decision by New York appointees.
The only reasonable explanations are either than Christie either initiated the lane closure or that on the second day of the closure Christie approved the continuing closure.
An explanation along the line that Christie and his top staff don’t bother to look at newspapers nor TV would be something most of us wouldn’t believe.
Lewis made two claims. One concerned his failed attempt to run for Senator and the other was his claim about a youth fitness program he wanted to start.
*davidm In case anyone thinks that the claims from Carl Lewis are simply a piling on of false accusations in the wake of the bridge scandal, Lewis was making the claim back in 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/ny...nate.html?_r=0
Quote:
Mr. Lewis, 49, has said that Mr. Christie tried to talk him out of running against Senator Dawn Marie Addiego, a Republican. On Monday, he told The Philadelphia Inquirer that the governor had said that in retaliation, he would kill a youth fitness program Mr. Lewis wanted to start, a claim Mr. Christie’s office denied*.
The keywords seems to be “Lewis claims”. Lewis’s claims seem to be more sour grapes than news-worthy.
But the fact that he was deemed ineligible has no bearing on the story.
Could you please learn to use the Quote function properly rather than italicize what you claim to be a quote? Your posts are difficult enough to read without the botched attempts at quotes; surely you’ve realized that you’re doing it wrong??
(shortened for clarity)
Certainly not the “only” reasonable explanation.
There was a hearing complete with a defense of the non-study study. The study seems to have consisted solely of a 6 page powerpoint presentation but it was presented with the conviction of a UN Ambassador. It fooled people for a while, including many in the media. Now it’s time for the truth and the facts. If Lewis, or others, want to make “claims”, I believe those “claims” should be subject to review and not taken as “fact” because it “sounds” good.
You have my permission not to read what I wrote. 
Of course it does. Lewis didn’t run for Senate and Lewis didn’t get his appointment. Lewis blames Christie. Some assume that Christie must be at fault (or they want Christie to be at fault). The reality is that Lewis was to blame for his in-eligibility.
But it makes headlines if Lewis blames Christie.
Neither the appointment or the Senate seat is related to the tollbooth problems.
In the book, The Natural (spoiler alert for a 70 year old book!), the judge offers Roy Hobbs a bribe to throw a baseball game. Roy Hobbs accepts the bribe. During the game, Hobbs changes his mind, but ends up striking out anyway.
The fact that the end result played out as it would have in the absence of any malfeasance doesn’t change the wrongness of the bribery that took place.
Intentionally or not, you’re muddling the issue. Lewis isn’t saying Christie denied him a chance to run for the Senate. He’s said Christie denied him a promised position in a fitness program because he was considering a Senate run.
Lewis was ineligible to run for a Senate seat. How was he ineligible to be a “fitness ambassador”? Christie obviously didn’t give Lewis the appointment. That’s a fact. So the only issue is why Christie chose not to to do so.
And nobody is claiming there’s a direct link between the bridge closing and Lewis’ appointment, other than they both involve the Christie administration.
This shouldn’t be like pulling teeth, but oh well. Lewis says a program he supported was shut down when he ran for state senate against a friend of Christie’s. You said Lewis was ruled to be ineligible for the office. That doesn’t matter. The issue is whether Lewis was punished for doing something Christie didn’t like. I have no idea if what he’s saying is true, but you’re not doing yourself any favors here- you’re just making it sound like you don’t know what everyone else is talking about.
Who was the “NJ fitness ambassador” before Carl Lewis? Who was the “NJ fitness ambassador” after Carl Lewis’s failure to get the job? Did Christie decide that NJ should have a “fitness ambassador” or did Lewis decide that Christie should make up a job for Lewis?
What does Carl Lewis’s failures have to do with lane restrictions from Ft Lee? I have no idea. Should Lewis’s failures influence the investigators trying to blame Christie for the lane restrictions? I guess that would depend on the political party they may be affiliated with.
Little Nemo explained it in one sentence.
How is it “sour grapes”? It would be sour grapes if, after discovering that he couldn’t run, Lewis claimed that he never really wanted to run anyway.
Lewis’s “claims” have no bearing on the tollbooth restrictions. No one has any idea if Lewis’s “claims” are true but somehow they’re supposed to prove that Christie is a bully??? Off topic at best.
It appears to me that Lewis asked the Governors Office to create a job for him. That offer was declined. Are aging athletes always guaranteed a government position simply because of who they were? Why should Christie be expected to spend taxpayer dollars to enhance Lewis’s image?
Lewis also expected to run for the Senate. It appears that Lewis is still pissed that he couldn’t run just because he wasn’t a resident. It couldn’t be Lewis’s fault so Lewis decided to publically blame someone else and get his name in the news, one more time.
The media haven’t found any evidence that Christie was actually involved in the tollbooth restrictions so they run with Lewis’s sourgrapes. At least it fills in any dead air time.
It’s on topic for exactly that reason: if true, it’s another story about Christie punishing someone who crossed him politically. Whether he’s telling the truth I have no idea.
Of course. Lewis dragged his eligibility through at least two court cases because he never really wanted to run anyway.
That was another hypothetical. Again, note his use of the word “if.”